Stiles sponsored the bill during the last session of the Legislature. It passed muster in the Senate but died on a tie vote in the House.

Impetus for the bill came from an earlier controversy in Portsmouth. Historic artifacts were found and identified at the site of Portwalk, a downtown mixed-use development, as reported by the Portsmouth Herald.

Stiles cited the dig conducted at the Portwalk Phase 3 as an example of why the legislation is needed. The two-day dig, conducted by Independent Archaeological Consulting LLC, turned up several pieces of the city's past, some of which are believed to be around 200 years old, noted the Herald.

Controversy surrounded the initial discovery. As reported in 2009:

“Concerns from local and state archaeologists have prompted a federal preservation leader to ask the Environmental Protection Agency to look into whether developers of the Portwalk project followed due process in acquiring permits to begin work on the former Parade Mall site.”

Those concerns involved federal law that requires certain projects go through a study of what historical artifacts might be compromised by a certain development.

A properly drafted SB 260 could avoid such conflicts by making them an integral part of the local planning process from the get-go.

But while the problems SB 260 looks to address are significant, we have to wonder about any added costs or roadblocks to development.

SB 260 would enable local legislative bodies, such as a city council, to adopt regulations that would allow planning boards to take action, when deemed suitable, to protect and preserve significant archaeological sites. Before exercising that authority, however, a planning board could adopt regulations providing for the protection of such deposits and sites, according to Stiles. The board could also ask a historic district panel to assist in adopting and applying such regulations.

All that is well and good, but the outstanding question remains: Who pays the bill?

If history is any guide it will be the developer who will be required to bear the added costs.

For those vested in the issue, Stiles' bill is needed. New Hampshire is a home rule state. Rights not specifically granted communities by the state constitution fall under the purview of the Legislature. It is therefore up to the Legislature to grant local communities jurisdiction.

But before that jurisdiction is granted there needs to be a discussion of financial liability and any limits that might go beyond those defined in federal law. SB 260 should not impose greater restrictions than currently exist. It should simply streamline the process to better ensure compliance at the local level.